The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-02-27
THE SUPREME COURT.
The Case Against Bishop Bas
sett Affirmed.
FULL TEXT OF THE DECISION.
The Bond Suit Against Messrs. Arm
strong and EIdredge-The Lower
Court UpheId-AppeaIs Taken.

The three Judges came together again
Yesterday afternoon at clock, but an
adjournment was shortly had until
$50 p. M, at which hour there were a
large number OF prominent attorneys
inside the bar, and a couple of miners
who had strayed in during their
rambles around the. town occupied the
seats reserve ! for spectators. During the
session decision in the case of Bishop
Bassett was given by Judge Zane, In
W lich both OF the associates con-
Cured. Following is the full text of it:
The defendant was convicted of the crime
| OF polygamy in the First District Court and
| sentenced to be imprisoned for the term of
| five years and to be fined in sum of
$500. From this judgment the defendant
| has appealed.
Among the jurors called was one Andrew
| Larsen, who in answer to que ton put to
| him upon his U0ir dire, said that he had
! ceased 70 do so almost seventeen years be-
! fore. He, also, produced q pardon by the
President of the United states extending to
him amnesty in the following words:
e. a.
States of America. To all to whom these
| presents shall come greeting;
Whereas, Andrew Larsen, OF the Territory
of Utah, having been guilty of bigamy or
! polygamv and unlawful cOhabitation before
| the pa sage of the Act approved March %
1882 entitled IAN Act to amend Section 1852
of the Revised Statutes in reference to big
amy and for other purposes" has become
subject to certain penalties and political dis
abilities,
i h I, ~.
ne has abandoned these unlawful practices
aud no longer cOuntenances or gives any
support thereto and that he has not been
gutlty thereof since the passage of the Act
aforesaid and is now a lawabiding citizen
And whereas, tae Commission erS appointed
under authority of the said Act, and the
Governor and Justices of the Supreme Court
OF the Territory, having recommended him
as worthy OF the amnesty contemplated in
Section Of the above entitled Act, for which
he in good faith has applied and made oath
as required in such cases;
Now, therefore, Be it known, that l. Ches-
ster 4. Arthur, President of the United
States of America, in consideration of the
premises, and divers other good and sui
ticlent reasons me thereuntO moving. do
hereby grant to the said Andrew Larsen
full and unconditional pardon.
In testimony whereof, etc."
Nevertheless, counsel for the defendant
challenged the Juror on the ground that he
had committed that offence as defined in
Section one Of an Act of Congress approved
March 22d, 1-S2; but The court denied the
challenge and defendant excepted and now
assigns the same as error.
Did the pardon render the juror cOmpe-
tent? The first section of the act above
mentioned provides: THAT in prosecution
for bigamy. pOlygamy or un awful cohab-
| itation X it shall be sufficient cause of
/ challenge to any person drawn or sum-
m q q q first 10
| he is or has been living in the practice of
| bigamy, pOlygamy or unlawful cOhabitation
with mo than one woman, or that he is or
has been guilty of an offense punishable by
! the foregoing sections, etc.
Section six OF the same act is as follows:
THAT the President is hereby authorized to
| grant amnesty to such classes of offenders
guilty of bigamy, polygamy or unlawful CO.
habitatiOn before the passage of this Act, on
! such conditions, and under such limitations
as he shall think proper, but no such am
nesty shall have effect unless the conditions
! thereof shall be complied with"
! Tn amnesty or pardon to the challenged
juror was granted in pursuance of the above
! section, and it was without condition or
! limitation. 1t granted to Larsen full and
| unconditional pardon" It has the effect of
| complete amnesty with respect to the future ;
| he was res. ored to all the rights and privi-
leges which lawfully he could have enjoyed
I if he had not committed the offense. With
respect to the future he was before the law
as il he had never practiced either OF the
crimes mentioned. The term amnesty in
the section quoted was used in its broadcast
| sense.
The next section legitimated the issue of
bigamous and polygamous marriages born
| before the Act took effect. The intention of
the Act was to induce those who had prac-
! ticed polygamy to abandon it, and to submit
to the law. In case thew would do so, the
President was authorized to extend to them
amnesty. They were invited to obey the law.
| with the promise that their crime would be
effaced If they would do So The word lam
nesty" is defined thus: AN act OF oblivion
OF past offsnses granted by the government
70 those who have been guilty of any neglect
or crime, usually upon condition that they
return to their duty within certain period y
BOuvier's Law Dict. 18th Edition, Vol l., p.
156, also. Rahedge and Law Dictionary,
Vol /
A pardon relieves an offender from the
consequences of an offens., of which he
has been convicted. while amnesty obliter-
ates an offense before conviction, and in
such case he stands before the law precisely
as though he had committed no ofense
And while the term parcon was used BY
the President, It had the effect OF amnesty.
In the case of kno.e VS.. United States. )
Otto, lag, the question was whether the
general pardon and amnesty granted by
President Johnson by proclamatio on the
twenty-afth day of December, 1868, would
entitle one receiving the benefit of such
pardon and amnesty. to the proceeds OF his
property previously condemned and sold
under the confscation act OF 1862, after
such proceeds had been paid into the
| Treasury.
The Court held that such person would
not be entitled to such proceeds; that The
pardon afforded no relief for the punish.
ment already suffered by Imprisonment
forced labor or otherwise. The Court said
Tn ofense being established by judicial
proceedings, that which has been done or
suffered, while they were in force is pre-
sumed TO have been rightfully done aud
justly suffered and no satisfaction for it can
be required. But when granted ID con
temptation o. law, i. so far blots out the
OtfenSe, that afterwards IL cannot be
imputed TO him 10 prevent tie assertion OF
MS legal rights. It gives to him q new
credit and capacity and rehabilitates him to
that extent in his former pos ton"
on the authority of this case. as well as
from tle nature ofthe pardon granted, we
hold nat this error in the record is not well
assigned.
The in !,ctment charged that defendant
was mfrrj d 70 KaFe Smith, while he had a
awful wife living BY the name of Sar h
Aun bssSetg. UrOn the trial The latter
woman pe5red IS, a witness, stated thai
she was defendants lawful wife, and ex-
pressed 8 Willingness u testify thst de-